At 9/19/12 09:01 PM, Bobbybroccoli wrote:
Ah, yes it is. Beorn's wizard friend as I read on wikipedia. I remember him from the book, just not by name. Apparently his role has bee "greatly extended" in the movie.

I really hopw Jackson doesn't add too much to the movie, but just a bit is fine.

Well, after looking on IMDB for the actor that plays Beorn, I gotta say he looks exactly like the guy I saw in the trailer (mostly his eyes, actually).

So I guess I was wrong, it IS in fact Beorn, haha.

Though I was happy they gave Radagast his intended role in the story. If you read the many unfinished stories of Tolkien, there's a part where Gandalf tells Merry, Gimly, Pippin, Sam and Frodo about the details of Bilbo's journey, and there's a part about Radagast.

I sadly, never read the Hobbit but I read the trilogy of Lord of the Rings.

I've already heard people complaining they noticed it's not like the book just from seeing the trailer. Anyone think the same? I never really heard what's different. I want to read the book though since I have plenty of time.

At 9/19/12 10:57 PM, Tarah wrote:
I sadly, never read the Hobbit but I read the trilogy of Lord of the Rings.

I've already heard people complaining they noticed it's not like the book just from seeing the trailer. Anyone think the same? I never really heard what's different. I want to read the book though since I have plenty of time.

I remember seeing that, but really only because it had more 10 million views on YouTube, which is a lot for a trailer. I can't help but remmeber how Cracked made this stupid list about reasons Hollywood should stop making prequels and I know laugh at it, because there's no way someone as talented as Peter Jackson will screw this up. Besides, even if he does, we already have a good prequel in the form of "X-Men: First Class".

You know the world's gone crazy when the best rapper's a white guy and the best golfer's a black guy - Chris Rock

Tons of minor details. The costumes and props that have been released so far seriously suck compared to those from the LOTR movies. It's been too long since I read the book (I was like in second or third grade?) so I can't name specific ones but I've discussed it plenty on other forums. My expectations have gone down significantly since I posted this trailer.

But then again, the LOTR rings weren't true to the book either and they were good movies so you never know.

At 9/20/12 01:46 PM, GuerrilleroHeroico wrote:
But then again, the LOTR rings weren't true to the book either and they were good movies so you never know.

I have strong hopes in this movie from a cinematographic perspective, from the atmosphere given by filters to the professional camerawork you would never think of. I expect nothing but the best acting and editing as the first three films featured. Personally, my personal favorite movie in the franchise would have been the unrelated Hobbit cartoon movie not many people seemed to enjoy.

I enjoyed the singing, I enjoyed how much of a badass motherfucker Smaug was; he just wasn't a dragon, he was more of a gigantic malicious human with wings. And I enjoyed the implied atmosphere of everything. You could tell orcs were trouble by looking at them, they were tanks of a monster. And then you could tell the orcs were about to cause serious shit, by the music slowly changing. And then there comes Gandalf with the eagles, the artistic tones (background, music, ect.) slowly lighten up.

I saw the 1977 cartoon movie, I saw all three LOTR films, and I have no idea what to expect. I suspect they will change the story on some parts, probably leave behind some things, and that it won't follow suit of the 1977 movie. But I can always hope. The first three LOTR films weren't fully true to the book either.

At 9/19/12 10:57 PM, Tarah wrote:
I sadly, never read the Hobbit but I read the trilogy of Lord of the Rings.

I've already heard people complaining they noticed it's not like the book just from seeing the trailer. Anyone think the same? I never really heard what's different. I want to read the book though since I have plenty of time.

It's been long since I read the book, but I think I do recognize most of the scenes from the trailer.

Also, I really don't think you can tell how much a trilogy of films is going to be like the book just by looking at a two minutes long trailer.

To all the people complaining the movie will not be exactly like the book:

The book is a children's book, and just like LOTR, the battles aren't detailed, and many events are left aside.

Yes, there's tons of stuff in the movie that isn't in the book, but it doesn't mean it didn't happen in the story. Read all of Tolkien's unfinished books and tales. A lot of the "added stuff" is actually form the Silmarillion or from The Unfinished Tales and Legends.

I'm a huge Tolkien fan, and I don't even care if Peter Jackson makes up scenes, if it'll make the movie better. I mean, even the Silmarillion wasn't officially released by JRRT.

In LOTR there were more discrepancies than "scenes not explicitly stated in the book added in".

They left out the scouring of the Shire; changed Saruman's death; and depicted the worgs, orc, and uruk-hai incorrectly.
Also if I recall correctly Sting wasn't supposed to be the only blade in the film that glowed when orc were near but they wanted to make it unique in the film or something. There's more but like I said I don't know them off the top of my head.

The first too are major plot points that were changed or just left out. The rest are forgivable but still, come on.

In LOTR there were more discrepancies than "scenes not explicitly stated in the book added in".

They left out the scouring of the Shire; changed Saruman's death; and depicted the worgs, orc, and uruk-hai incorrectly.
Also if I recall correctly Sting wasn't supposed to be the only blade in the film that glowed when orc were near but they wanted to make it unique in the film or something. There's more but like I said I don't know them off the top of my head.

The first too are major plot points that were changed or just left out. The rest are forgivable but still, come on.

True. Glamdring was supposed to glow. I was always quite disappointed about that. What's stupid is that they will probably make it glow in this movie.

The orcs, I can live with.

Cleansing of the Shire, I was pretty mad, but the movie's already 3 hours long. Would've been 5 hours, extended version, if they added the scouring. Saruman's death pretty much sucked, but I've seen worse.

You're right, you all stated a few of the things that annoyed me in LOTR (not to forget no Tom Bombadil, old Forest, Wraiths, Haldir showing up in Helm's deep, etc.). But whatever. They can't just take the book and turn it into a movie. It's an interpretation, after all.

You have to think like a marketing person. The ring being destroyed was played up the whole trilogy, and people who haven't read the book expect it to be the climax. The scouring of the Shire (though great in the book) would seem lame and filler to movie goers.

The first too are major plot points that were changed or just left out. The rest are forgivable but still, come on.

It's been said, but it is an interpretation, not a word for word remake (though three movies for the Hobbit better be pretty much word for word and then some extra to be worth three movie tickets).

Wow I am surprised at how good it looked considering it was shot at 60fps or whatever it was. I thought it was going to look really bad shot at such a high frame-rate. This might change cinema. I couldn't even tell it wasn't 24p.